The judgment clarifies compensation adjustments due to insufficient assessment of income and deductions under motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J. (Oral)

CM-5923-CII-2025

1. The present application has been filed seeking restoration of the main appeal i.e. FAO-1043-2006, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Court.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the main appeal i.e. FAO-1043-2006, is ordered to be restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself.

FAO-1043-2006 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 11.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.3,36,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Sanjay Bansal in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 02.07.2004.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends:-

i) that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

ii) that deceased-Sanjay Bansal was 34 years old having monthly income of Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.7,000/- per month as a salary from Raunak Ram Rice Mill, Sunam, Rs.7,500/- per month profit from M/s Chamanda Brick Kiln and remaining income from Sanjay Kumar HUF.

iii) that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses and also erred in applying the multiplier of 14 instead of 16.

iv) that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and future prospects.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that deceased-Sanjay Bansal was 34 years old; was working in Raunak Ram Rice Mill, Sunam, was shareholder in M/s Chamanda Brick Kiln and besides this, he was also having HUF income. He was an income tax assessee and has proved in income for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 to the tune of Rs.62,521/- per annum which was proved on record as Ex.P3. The same was also corroborated by the testimony of Bharat Bhushan, who was examined as PW1. Therefore, this Court assess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,210/-. Reference at this stage can be made upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.Vishnu Ganga and others Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited , 2025 INSC 123. The relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:-

11. XXX XXXX XXX...........

It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738, Para 17; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 Para 7